Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur

Smt. Ramkanya vs State Of Rajasthan ... on 1 May, 2025

Author: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

Bench: Pushpendra Singh Bhati

[2025:RJ-JD:20762-DB]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
                         JODHPUR
 D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                         No. 684/2025

Smt. Ramkanya W/o Jagdish Das, Aged About 41 Years, R/o
Hazyakheri, Police Station Bhadesar, District Chittorgarh
(Rajasthan).
        (Presently Confined In District Jail, Chittorgarh)
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Respondent
                                 Connected With
 D.B. Criminal Misc Suspension Of Sentence Application (Appeal)
                         No. 683/2025
Nanudas @ Rameshwar S/o Shri Shanker Das, Aged About 31
Years, R/o Laxmipura, Police Station Bhadesar, District
Chittorgarh (Rajasthan).
         (Presently Confined In District Jail, Chittorgarh)
                                                                       ----Appellant
                                       Versus
State Of Rajasthan.
                                                                     ----Respondent


For Appellant(s)             :     Mr. J.V.S. Deora.
For Respondent(s)            :     Mr. Rajesh Bhati, PP.



       HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA

Order

01/05/2025

1. The appellants-applicants herein have been convicted and

sentenced as below vide judgment dated 16.02.2019 passed by

learned Additional Sessions Judge No.2, Nimbahera, District

Chittorgarh in Sessions Case No.37/2015:

Appellant - Smt. Ramkanya:

       Offence              Sentence                                Fine
     302/120-B IPC   Life Imprisonment           Rs.5,000/- and in default of which
                                                 to further undergo one month
                                                 additional S.I.



 [2025:RJ-JD:20762-DB]                   (2 of 6)                       [SOSA-684/2025]


        201 IPC      Three Years' R.I.             Rs.5,000/- and in default of which
                                                   to further undergo one month
                                                   additional S.I.

Appellant - Nanudas @ Rameshwar:
        Offence             Sentence                                Fine
        302 IPC      Life Imprisonment             Rs.5,000/- and in default of which
                                                   to further undergo one month
                                                   additional S.I.
        120-B IPC    Life Imprisonment             Rs.5,000/- and in default of which
                                                   to further undergo one month
                                                   additional S.I.
        201 IPC      Three Years' R.I.             Rs.5,000/- and in default of which
                                                   to further undergo one month
                                                   additional S.I.

2. The appellants-applicants have preferred the applications for

suspension of sentence under Section 389 Cr.P.C. for suspension

of sentences during the pendency of the appeal and for release on

bail.

3. The salient facts of the case, as discerned by this Hon'ble

Court, reveal that a report was lodged on 11.01.2015 by the

complainant regarding an incident that occurred on 10.01.2015

when the deceased Jagdish Das went with Nanu Das, but did not

return back. Subsequently, the body of the deceased Jagdish Das

was found on 11.01.2015.

4. Mr. J.V.S. Deora, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

applicants-appellants, submits that there are no previous criminal

antecedents of the appellants.

4.1 Learned counsel further submits that though the merits of

the case warrant intervention, but he is restricting his arguments

to the prolonged period of incarceration endured by the appellants

i.e. more than 10 years.

4.2 The only plea raised by learned counsel for the appellants-

applicants is that as the appellants have already undergone the

[2025:RJ-JD:20762-DB] (3 of 6) [SOSA-684/2025]

custody of more than 10 years and there is no chance of hearing

of the appeal in near future, thus, in view of the directions of the

Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 15.09.2022 in Sonadhar v. The

State of Chhattisgarh : SLP (Crl.) No.529/2021, the sentence

of the applicants be suspended and they be enlarged on bail.

4.3 Further submissions have been made that there are no

reasons and / or extenuating circumstances for denial of bail.

Submissions have also been made with reference to order dated

05.10.2021 in Saudan Singh v. The State of Uttar Pradesh :

SLP (Crl.) No.4633/2021, wherein also observations have been

made regarding grant of bail in the appeal at the High Court stage

except certain exceptions and that none of the exceptions are

applicable in the present case.

5. Learned Public Prosecutor though opposes the application for

suspension of sentence with the submission that as the

appellants-applicants have committed heinous offence, suspension

of sentence of such offender would send adverse message in the

society. However, he has shown to this Court the actual custody

report and antecedent report of the applicants-appellants and

submits that the actual custody of more than 10 years of both the

applicants-appellants is a correct fact and both the applicants-

appellants do not have any criminal antecedents. The custody

report and the antecedent report are taken on record.

6. We have considered the submissions made by learned

counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on

record.

[2025:RJ-JD:20762-DB] (4 of 6) [SOSA-684/2025]

7. Looking to the fact that criminal appeal is pertaining to year

2019 and is pending at the stage of hearing and that there is no

likelihood of the appeal being heard in near future.

8. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Saudan Singh

(supra) observed an exception, which could be a broad guideline,

which reads as follows :-

"1. Heinous nature of crime :

(a) Prohibited categories : To ensure public peace and the well-being of the society, life convicts who are hardened criminals, repeat offenders, kidnappers, in crimes related to massacre (three or more than three murders), habitual criminals, and fall in prohibited categories as per the U.P. Jail Standing Policy-

no bail should be granted."

9. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sonadhar (supra),

while dealing with SMW (Crl.) No.4/2021 pertaining to 'life

convicts in jail whose appeals are pending before the High Court'

inter-alia, issued the following directions :-

"We consider appropriate to issue directions in terms of the aforesaid suggestions to the Patna High Court and on a pari materia basis to even the other High Courts. However, in order to carry out this exercise, the data would have to be compiled of such of the persons who have been in custody for more than 10 years and more than 14 years, with these persons being considered for grant of bail pending appeal, if there is no chance of hearing of the appeal in the near future, unless there are reasons for denial of bail. We can understand if any of the parties is delaying the appeal itself but short of that, we are of the view that all persons who have completed 10 years of sentence and appeal is not in proximity of hearing with no extenuating circumstances should be enlarged on bail."

[2025:RJ-JD:20762-DB] (5 of 6) [SOSA-684/2025]

10. Prior to that in the case of Saudan Singh (supra) also

observations were made regarding grant of bail in cases where

convicts have undergone sentence for sufficiently long time and

appeals were pending at the High Court stage with exceptions

indicated therein.

11. In the present case as observed herein-before, the

appellants-applicants have already undergone sentence of more

than 10 years; there are no criminal antecedents against them,

and apparently, there are no chances of hearing of the present

appeal in near future. Except for the fact that the appellants-

applicants were involved in offence leading to their conviction for

life, nothing has been brought on record by way of extenuating

circumstances for denial of suspension of sentence.

12. Consequently, following the order in the case of Sonadhar

(supra) and observations made in Saudan Singh (supra), without

making any observations on merits of the case only on account of

the fact that more than 10 years' sentences has already been

undergone by the appellants-applicants and there are no criminal

antecedents, this Court deems it appropriate to suspend the

substantive sentence of the appellants-applicants during the

pendency of the appeal.

13. Accordingly, the instant applications for suspension of

sentence filed under Section 389 Cr.P.C. are allowed and it is

ordered that substantive sentence passed by learned Additional

Sessions Judge No.2, Nimbahera, District Chittorgarh in Sessions

Case No.37/2015 against the appellants-applicants (1) Smt.

Ramkanya W/o Jagdish Das and (2) Nanudas @ Rameshwar

[2025:RJ-JD:20762-DB] (6 of 6) [SOSA-684/2025]

S/o Shri Shanker Das shall remain suspended till final disposal

of the aforesaid appeal and they shall be released on bail,

provided each of them execute a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.50,000/- with two sureties of Rs.25,000/- each to the

satisfaction of learned trial Judge for their appearance in this

Court on 30.06.2025 and whenever ordered to do so till the

disposal of the appeal on the conditions indicated below:

1. That they will appear before the trial court in the month of January of every year till the appeal is decided.

2. That if the applicants change the place of residence, they will give in writing their changed address to the trial Court as well as to the counsel in the High Court.